Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Fair comment

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Wed Apr 16, 2025 7:16 pm
There's a whole host of people on Bluesky who have built profiles bashing Labour on Brexit so they're going to pivot and attack Labour over this.

Naomi Smith and Best For Britain are pretty standard campaigners who mostly push their point in the way campaign groups normally do. We can agree or disagree about youth visas or whatever. But occasionally they get sucked in- just because an agri deal is mentioned, apparently nearly done a month out, why does that mean nothing else will be discussed?

As I said before, I've been more frustrated with some academics who you see steaming in "just do this", and you look and they're not experts on trade.

Yep. Seems like the Guardian is particularly pushing this stuff. If 2 anonymous people mention it, and it never happens, to what extent was it real? I know political journalists have space to fill, but really, the approach should be "thanks, that's interesting, but I'm going to write about (eg) the benefit cuts now". The Guardian has leveraged this stuff to "Get Starmer", which is a point of view, but a baffling one given they were "Get Corbyn" a few years ago (I say that as no fan, obviously).

Jason Cowley in The Times wrote the Hard Labour piece. The Guardian article, which got everyone frothing at the mouth on blue sky, said Starmer should do more media, of course, it mentioned Trump, so everyone went wild.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... a-strategy

Senior Labour figures are urging Keir Starmer to take a leaf out of Donald Trump’s book and make more frequent media appearances in an attempt to dominate the political agenda as the US president does.

MPs told the Guardian they want the prime minister to act more like Trump, who has upended political convention by televising large parts of his cabinet, holding long bilateral meetings on camera and calling in to live television shows.

The strategy is very different from that employed by the prime minister, who has said he wants politics to intrude less in people’s lives, and sometimes goes several days without doing a public appearance.

Some in his party believe that Starmer’s safety-first approach to media is ill-suited to modern politics, where the news agenda moves rapidly and traditional outlets have less power than ever.

The strategy is very different from that employed by the prime minister, who has said he wants politics to intrude less in people’s lives, and sometimes goes several days without doing a public appearance.

Is that really true? I glance at the Live Politics most days and seems like Starmer's out there doing something a lot of the time, not least meeting other European leaders (not that the BTL goons seem to notice).

The "Trump" comparison seems like a fairly throwaway line about the need for a more direct style, as they see it. Nobody is on the record supporting Trump policies on trade, tax, climate or anything else. But when you want to make a point, you use examples that people know about and assume they're bright enough to see which part of the comparison you're actually talking about.

I've heard it all now. Labour are "Reform-lite" on trade?! Assuming Bloomberg and David Henig have good sources, Reform are going to go apeshit about the European Court of Justice role on agriculture trade. Just like they don't like alignment because it isn't proper Brexit freedom.

If he's distinguishing between issue and image, then you might say they're Reform lite in the image they present, not on the issue.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Apr 20, 2025 5:03 pm

The strategy is very different from that employed by the prime minister, who has said he wants politics to intrude less in people’s lives, and sometimes goes several days without doing a public appearance.

Is that really true? I glance at the Live Politics most days and seems like Starmer's out there doing something a lot of the time, not least meeting other European leaders (not that the BTL goons seem to notice).

The "Trump" comparison seems like a fairly throwaway line about the need for a more direct style, as they see it. Nobody is on the record supporting Trump policies on trade, tax, climate or anything else. But when you want to make a point, you use examples that people know about and assume they're bright enough to see which part of the comparison you're actually talking about.

Unfortunately, they didn't count on people on Bluesky. By doing more media, they mean more podcasts like Trump did, of course, here the most popular podcast is The Rest is History. Which is as far away from the Joe Rogan as you can imagine.

I think”podcasts” are going to end badly for Starmer. Might as well stick with Radio 4.

Wouldn't News Agents or Campbell and Stewart's audience be roughly the same as R4's news output?
I guess Russell Brand was the UK Joe Rogan.

Brother came around for Easter Sunday, he thinks that Labour needs to put the country on a war footing, oh, and they should renationalise water. He also feels Labour should have planned ahead for office and done things instead of doing what Labour did, which he thinks is fighting amongst themselves.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Apr 20, 2025 5:07 pm I've heard it all now. Labour are "Reform-lite" on trade?! Assuming Bloomberg and David Henig have good sources, Reform are going to go apeshit about the European Court of Justice role on agriculture trade. Just like they don't like alignment because it isn't proper Brexit freedom.

If he's distinguishing between issue and image, then you might say they're Reform lite in the image they present, not on the issue.

Well, I should say I had a very nice discussion with Mr Painter. His point was that Labour are still doing what we used to call Hard Brexit. And fair point.

We agreed that there's scope with alignment and being sensible about the ECJ to do a lot better than we have done so far on EU trade. Nice bloke.

I find point 2 a bit odd since people do have a negative view of Putin, so yeah, pointing out that Farage is pro-Putin makes sense to me.

I think Labour are mistaken if they think they can shift many votes with that. Lots of people who like Farage don't see him sitting opposite Putin at the negotiating table. They just see Farage pissing our ambassadors about, with their superior education and experience.

There's plenty of pro Putin material from Reform foot soldiers Labour could drag out just as the Tories did against Labour in the 80s. You can't trust Farage with defence and national security.
Farage is a better campaigner than Johnson as his bonhomie appears more genuine. But he's a thin skinned little prick under fire.

A lot of Farage's followers would welcome Putin in charge here. "No more foreign wars" is if anything a vote winner.

Merely, special military operations...

kreuzberger wrote: ↑Mon Apr 21, 2025 10:33 am Merely, special military operations...

Like the ones they can't talk about.

Breakfast Clubs launched today.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpvrd0j9ngwo

Free breakfast clubs are to launch at 750 schools across England next week but teachers have voiced concerns that government funding for the scheme will not meet the cost.

From Tuesday, thousands of parents can access half an hour of free morning childcare as part of the trial that will run to July, ahead of an expected national rollout.

But teaching unions have raised concerns the funding is too low.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said the move would help with "breaking down barriers to opportunity".

Labour campaigned on a promise of free breakfast clubs in every English primary school and later tripled funding to £30m.

The scheme will give parents of primary-aged children up to 95 additional hours and save them £450 per year in childcare costs, ministers say.

Find out which schools are on the list

The headteachers union welcomed the expansion of breakfast clubs, which some schools already run, but said schools have suggested the funding is not enough.

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: "While we welcome the intentions behind the programme, the initial feedback we are hearing from many school leaders participating in the pilot is that the funding just isn't sufficient.

"At a time when school budgets are already stretched, most can ill-afford to subsidise this shortfall."

He added it was "absolutely crucial" the funding is addressed before the scheme is rolled out nationally and it has received assurance from the government the funding would be looked at carefully during the trial.

Teaching union NASUWT said the scheme would make a "significant contribution" to tackling child hunger but it needed to be closely monitored to ensure funding issues can be addressed without it impacting other provisions within schools.

Of course, this has got everyone at Bluesky frothing at the mouth.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... nefits-cap

I can't help but feel a little suspicious that the Guardian published this on the day that breakfast clubs are launched.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Tue Apr 22, 2025 5:23 pm Of course, this has got everyone at Bluesky frothing at the mouth.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... nefits-cap

I can't help but feel a little suspicious that the Guardian published this on the day that breakfast clubs are launched.

Not to state the obvious but Bluesky feeds you what you look at because of the algorithm. I’m on there, and follow a few politics people, and have not seen any mention of this.

I think you may be inadvertently creating your own reverse echo chamber.

EDIT: ok, to be fair I have seen a couple of mentions now. But it’s well short of ‘everyone frothing’. There’s a lot more, for example, on Starmer now saying trans women are not women and letting the SC take all the heat rather than doing anything constructive like say the law will be looked at. Which I personally find very disappointing.